Suggestion: To go with the name, perhaps an incubator that contains an egg with the Wikimedia logo? --Gray Porpoise 19:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that Incubator is necessarily the best name either, but it is at least a start. Wikikernel, Wikilabs, and Seed wiki have also been suggested by previous participants. In all of these, the idea is that this is a "safe" place to do some experimentation with both the MediaWiki software as well as to come up with unique ways of working on content that doesn't fit on the other Wikimedia sister projects. I actually like the Wikilabs name and concept, as a place to encourage experimentation. Perhaps some logo could be developed following that line of thought? --Roberth 21:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the board decided to use Incubator and that that was to be its final name? —Nightstallion(?) 05:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I called it incubator on a whim, inspired by Apache's Incubator projects. No objection on changing it if there's a better name. --brion 03:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I like the mental image of "breeding" projects until they're ready to go public, so I'd advocate leaving the name as "Wikimedia Incubator". Alternately, how about "Wikimedia Hatchery"? ;) —Nightstallion(?) 07:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

What about provisional copyright? The WMF shouldn't necessarily "own" the logos that don't make the cut, but the one that is selected should be capable of being licensed to the WMF for exclusive unlimited commercial usage (essentially the same as transfering copyright). Or the contributor is willing to transfer copyright to the WMF if the logo is selected? I know this is picking at a little point, but there is no reason that a logo that was rejected by the WMF or one of these projects couldn't instead by altered slightly and used on another project that is not affiliated with the WMF on a date after the selection has been made.

I do understand why the WMF wants control over the logos, but having control over all logo submissions? Even after the logo contest is over? I fail to see how the WMF would be damaged if a rejected logo is used elsewhere. --Roberth 22:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

To be frank, I agree, but I simply copied from official documentation pages. This is not something to discuss here, but rather over at the logo pages. ;) —Nightstallion(?) 05:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

That's simply a practical solution since commons offers only the choice between copyright WMF or several free licenses. And once a logo submission is put under a free license, these rights can't be taken back. We could maybe create a license template for provisional usage rights for the WMF for logo contests, this would leave the copyright with the author. --Elian 13:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not possible to fully transfer copyright in some (all?) EU countries, only to transfer exclusive rights of use. The original author retains moral rights (attribution, integrity of the work, etc.). This needs to be taken into account for submissions from jurisdictions that recognize moral rights.--Eloquence 19:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

There's no such problem, the copyright notice is separate from the indication of author. And the copyright is clear as soon as you the proposed logo integrates the "Wikimedia" pretected mark, and the pretected Wikimedia logo : without explicit written agreement from the Foundation, the Foundation keeps the copyright on ALL derived logos (like the draft one I proposed above), even if there's no explicit copyright notice attached along with the image!

Note that my SVG image also embeds internally the Foundation copyright, even if this is not displayed in the image description.

For now the SVG support on the MediaWiki image server still does not parse the embedded RDF descriptors within graphic files (there's only the support for parsing and displaying the meta-data embedded in JPEG images by cameras), something that should be corrected to enforce the legibility of all images uploaded on Wikimedia servers.

Note that these embedded meta-data better protect the images than the Wiki description pages, and often contain the copyright, author attribution and licencing information, and very often a description of the image, something that should be enough to make the upload legal, without even needing to include an external Wiki description.

With this support, one could build the Wiki description page easily without asking to the user that uploaded the image, and we could veridy too that someone does not include a falsified Wiki description page with incorrect licence by uploading images illegally copied from external websites (notably news and TV websites).

Most of the logo suggestions somehow distort the existing Wikimedia logo. This is a no go. No corporation allows their logo to be deformed like this, neither should we. -- Zanimum 19:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Most companies have two reasons for not allowing modified logos:

Allowing others to use a modified logo reduces the value of the logo as an identifier for the company.

Using modified logos, or multiple logos, themselves might cost them brand awareness, though this is not actually certain. Not all companies agree with this: Google will happily modify the logo on their webpages on special occasions.

We're not a company, and our logos are not for brand-awareness. We have no need to use the exact same logo on all our projects, but it would be nice if our logos refered to WikiMedia somehow to indicate the relationship. That's why the logos of several of the projects use elements of the WikiMedia logo. Wikimedia Hatchery could do so as well, the more so because it is not merely a project of WikiMedia, but is the way WikiMedia creates projects. Aliter 20:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add here that the need to not modify the logo is not exactly the same here. This is more the equivilant of a subsidiary company (or organization) that is using the theme of the logo as a derivitive logo. This actually increases brand awareness, and is a commonly used technique for "sister" companies or organizations. As a very strong example, look at all of the logos used by the various national Boy Scout groups, that all are based on very similar themes (usually the French flur-de-lies) and other common themes, but also incorporate national identities as well. These are all derivitive logos but also give an international common thread for all the groups. I've seen this done with many other organizations, including for-profit companies and their subsidiary groups. I would agree that if this were a completely independent project seperate from the Wikimedia Foundation, that such logo derivities would be damaging. But in this case it is a sub-project of the WMF and slightly different rules do indeed apply. --Roberth 11:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, our logos are for brand awareness. They certainly aren't for filling up a bunch of space on the screen. And no, not a company, but a charity. But look at the amazing job the Breast Cancer Foundation has done in turning an illness into a brand. I agree wholeheartedly that linking to the Wikimedia logo would be great, as this very close knit to the Foundation. However, as you mention, the other logos often contain elements of the logo. However most of these are simply come off as Photoshopped parodies of the WMF logo. If we don't worship and protect our trademarks as gods, defend them at all cost, if someone else gets a logo that mimics us, they can justify it that "well, Wikimedia doesn't protect their brands" -- Zanimum 15:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

As I personally do not think that a brand has no purpose but to fill space, in my opinion a logo can serve a brand purpose without serving a brand-awareness purpose. Actually, the opposite is beyond me, but YMMV. Of course, I also don't see why the Foundation not only claiming the logo pure but also all known variations, is going to be a weaker positions than the aloof position of protection just the logo(s) pure, But since religion has entered the discussion I fear we have to let it stand at that. Aliter 21:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

For gawd sakes, by "worship them as gods", I simply mean that we take them with the utmost seriousness. -- Zanimum 18:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, as it is, Zaninum is totally right. According to the wikimedia:Wikimedia visual identity guidelines, any version of the incubator logo below (representing a distorted Wikimedia Logo) is indeed a no go. There is actually pretty much no arguing about it.

Apart from the pure "guideline" part of this, why on earth can't people actually come up with cool new refreshing logos? Especially for an incubator, come on guys! A little imagination here! Come up with fresh good ideas, scrub your brains! notafish}<';> 22:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm so you mean all of the voting etc. underway now is completely useless? A bit late for this sort of comment...:-(. By the way, why do the wikispecies and/or commons logo exist, they too are distortions of the wikimedia logo? NielsF 00:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

An idea my girlfriend and I came up with which I think is quite good would be the following: Imagine an egg standing upright, with either a slightly blueish tilt similar to many of the other logos or simply an absolutely normal egg-like colour; the top part is already slightly cracked. This is meant to symbolise that we're hatching new projects or language editions here, and that at some point they will break through the shell of their egg and become "real" projects. What do you think of that?

If someone who's good at graphics happens to read this, could you please draw up a sketch of this? I'm thinking along the lines of this, but with more and smaller cracks. —Nightstallion(?) 05:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean something like that?:

Or in smaller sizes:

This is in SVG format (but the text was converted to vector outlines to avoid font dependency, there it just used Arial Bold). The three eggs are exact copies of each other, from the big egg. The colors may need adjustment, and I did not include a shadow, only some light effect on the inner and outer yellows of eggs.

Feel free to modify or enhance... As long as you keep the Wikimedia copyright. Just upload enhanced versions on top of this one, and add your author name...

(note that I assigned the copyright to the Wikimedia Foundation (because it contains the Wikimedia logo, but just gave my name of author as required in my juridiction), but I still did not upload it on Commons or on the Incubator wiki (this may be done later, once a choice is done).

Nice work, but I meant more along the lines of a still intact egg with just a few cracks, to show that the proposed projects are still being hatched and not yet ready. I think that maybe a single egg would fit in better with the other project logos, but maybe that's just me? Still, nice first draft! =] —Nightstallion(?) 20:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a single egg would probably work better, and the tint is a bit too yellow. The egg shape could use some work as well. Otherwise, good idea.--Eloquence 20:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

What I like about the multiple eggs is that it implies multiple projects on the same website. This is really a very different kind of project from other Wikimedia efforts in this regard, and the multiple eggs hint at that idea. --Roberth 17:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

That looks awesome, but I suspect Wikimedia won't approve it: it sort of remixes the Foundation logo, and that's against guidelines. (They rejected this version of a logo I made for similar reasons). Tlogmer 22:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that should be a problem if there's sufficient community support; do note that the Commons and Wikispecies logos are heavily inspired by the Wikimedia one.--Eloquence 06:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Against which guidelines? I read the opposite here. In fact the logo also shares more or less the second concept below. And I also respected the wanted copyright notice.

Regarding the colors, this is changeable too if you think it's too much yellow (but remember that real bird eggs are definitely not white, and most often vary with various shades of brown! white eggs are those from amphibians and insects, and they are circular and compacted in clusters in a wet environment, or they are like turtle eggs in the sand of a warm beach).

Well, this is just a concept; I first tried the single egg, and found it was not suggestive enough about the term Incubator, and at smallsize, it looked to much like a zero, not very good for giving value to the name... I added twosmaller eggs, because it represents the conceptof different stages of development, the multiplicity of projects, and also because it equilibrates the overall size which otherwise would have been too much narrow. A better graphist then me would really enhance this draft, by adding small cracks, and granularity to the shell of eggs. Verdy P 03:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Note that I just uploaded a corrected version of the same image, with less yellowish colors, and with adjusted titles, so that the whole logo fits in an exact square (of 600px with the default display resolution). Verdy P 14:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Mh. Two suggestions: Maybe a bluish-greyish tint for the egg colour, to bring it in line with many of the other logos? And could you try having it as a whole egg with just a few cracks? —Nightstallion(?) 09:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a completely different suggestion, not mine; contribute with your own logo, or ask to people in the Graphics Workshop if they are interested. For me, displaying blue eggs won't be very meaningful, and eggs won't even be recognized, and seen as simple ovals, and nothing will correlate the idea of the incubator, where what is important is the content of the incubated project. I personally like the fact that this is a small Wikimedia that has still not escaped from the "protection" of the shell, and the concept carried by the variable sizes. The partially open egg makes the logo partially visible and indicates a partial opening for what is still not a completely born project... So propose your own separate logo (your reference to an external image is not acceptable as such, and trying to reproduce its concept exactly is not acceptable either for what would be a Wikimedia Foundation owned logo). Verdy P 14:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'm touchy today, but I find that comment bordering on en:WP:CIVIL. If I could actually design logos, don't you think I might already have done so? :p Whatever, I simply meant to propose something which someone who's got the time and capability could try to base a sketch on. —Nightstallion(?) 18:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I like this logo. It is derivative from the logo on this page for Wikimedia: Meta-Wiki, but I think this one is pleasing to the eye, and its seeming depiction of more than one object illustrates the purpose of this Wiki.--Drboisclair 21:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I like the egg idea a lot. But short of that, since this project has "Wikimedia" in its name, we could also just use the Foundation's logo and stick "Incubator" under that, just like Meta's logo. This is kind of a fallback plan in case we can't find someone who can draw a decently plausible egg. – Minh Nguyễn(talk, contribs) 18:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Not yet vectorised, - someone else might do this, maybe me but not yet. This just demonstrates the logo concept, seen in various colourschemes. For some reason, thumbnails arent working for me. If that's the same for you, click on the image and then view its full-sized version which does work. If all fails, i'll describe it: a wikimedia-shaped logo with the blue circle as a complete ring, and a budding circle within pushing outwards, hence: incubator. --Alfakim 23:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the old color scheme. It looks too much like the Meta logo. With different colors, it might be okay, but it still looks very similar. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 23:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not all that fond of the eggs, but proposal 3 doesn't really work for me. If it doesn't have WikiMedia colours, it doesn't make any sense, and even the one that does, doesn't strike me as pushing outward. If anything, I'd say the top was being pulled between the other two segments. Aliter 03:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

An excellent idea! However, I agree with Ambush Commander that the old colours should be altered. And the most obvious solution is to replace the red colour with yellow! Ramir 08:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The yellow is too bright, and doesn't work well with the other colors. In my opinion, the original color cheme still looks best. Gyre 03:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I've submitted this proposal as a style concept - change the colours, or change the intricacies as much you like. the core of my proposal is the "budding wikimedia". --Alfakim 16:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Correction: I meant to say "I like the idea, but it would indeed benefit from better execution..." Anyone up to it? —Nightstallion(?) 13:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this better? I'm not an expert in SVG-drawing, but it's a start. Made it a little bit more egg-like, colours can of course be altered. NielsF 20:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I like this idea, the bottom is better!--Vipuser 03:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Great! I say we take this, rename Incubator "Wikimedia Hatchery", and are done with this contest. :) —Nightstallion(?) 05:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

A minor change I'd request: Do you think it might look better if the whitespace between the different parts of the logo were as wide as it is in the Meta logo? It's considerably smaller in your proposal. Just a thought. :) —Nightstallion(?) 07:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I like the second variant more (for pure esthetic reasons) While the 1st reminds me of a brain, the 2nd seems to resemble a semen or nut. Maybe someone wants to try, and add a little leaf sprouting out of it? I.e. make it a little unsymmetrical. -- Purodha Blissenbach 17:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, NielsF, this is much better. The top (especially the green) is a bit sharper than I would have done, rounding it and thus shortening it a bit would allow displaying it slightly larger, but this is indeed where I wanted to go. Nightstallion has a point about the width of the white, but I'm not sure there is room for that: The red disk being inside the logo takes up more space there. Could anyone try put WikiMedia Hatchery underneath (one line?), so we can see what size everything comes out at? Aliter 20:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Sigh... I don't know what it is with me today, but when I first saw this logo it reminded me of a vagina. :( 203.177.60.236 09:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC) (User:TheCoffee from en.wikipedia)

This is a great logo - slight changes needed per above; otherwise, this is the way to go. --Alfakim 16:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I've made 2 new versions, see right, I tried as much as possible to do something with the remarks.. I'm currently looking into how I can get the strange black box away.. I think someone with more experience in SVG-editing should take a look. Increasing the whitespace even more makes the green parts too thin, so I didn't do this. Because of the height/width ratio of the image the text should be in two lines I think, otherwise the picture becomes too large in relation to the text. Number 2 is slightly reduced in height compared with nr. 1, nr. 3 even more so. NielsF 20:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I prefer "Hatchery" in black with the egg logo we're currently discussing, but I prefer the final logo with the least height. It looks great! —Nightstallion(?) 05:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm 100% in favour of the name "Wikimedia Hatchery" and the last logo you've presented. Can we start a vote now? ;) —Nightstallion(?) 20:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This is great! I think we have a wide enough variety to start a vote. I'm kind of torn between incubator and hatchery as the name of the wiki though. Maybe a vote should be held for that as well. — Randy Johnston (talk • contribs) 23:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yup, this logo is a winner. I'm all for it. Gyre 08:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I like this format, and the horizontal breakline gives that slight reminder of an egg starting to break too. I still prefer 'Incubator' though as 'hatchery' sounds to en-centric. --Alison Wheeler 08:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the bottom is a bit weak with that division line. But I'd like to try a different solution as well. (Don't panic, no need to stop me; this really is as far as I can take this.) Vertical division line on upper part only, green tips blunted just a pixel. This ought to give a nice round bottom, if done by a proper artist, and it has a slightly stronger division line. (Might need like half a pixel more green at the bottom and where I removed the horizontal line, but that's beyond me.)

The reasons I'm not fond of "Incubator" are that it's less simple English and that in several languages the Latin is associated with the incubation of diseases only. "Hatchery" simply sounds safer. Aliter 19:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Made a SVG version of Aliter's newest variation, see right. NielsF 19:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I fear my version also may have had black box syndrome in some browsers.

Does anyone have a preference for either of the final products? (Or a loathing for both?) Aliter 21:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I have a slight preference for 4a, but as I'm just "the artist" here and probably won't be involved with the project itself...if everyone likes 4b better, I won't mind. NielsF 22:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Or should we wait until the name's been decided first? I don't think we need to wait, personally. —Nightstallion(?) 05:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

As Incubator has a relatively small user base, it should be OK (this is just my opinion, not based on any official policy). Make sure that all concerned are notified, and don't change it unless there is a large majority in favour of something. Daniel (‽) Check out Wikiscope! 11:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

At least for the logo's I and/or Aliter have proposed the text can be altered in a sec, so the name of the project shouldn't be a problem. So voting for the logo is ok, I think. NielsF 14:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'd say we vote on the basic logo first (three choices: three eggs, Wikimedia-based, single stylised egg), and then have a vote on the possible variants for the winning logo, if there are any. Good? —Nightstallion(?) 20:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

How long does voting last? Is 4/0/3/47 enough consensus to get the Board to officially rubber stamp the public opinion as reality? -- 70.26.123.156 14:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Voting has lasted for almost two weeks now and there seems to be an overwhelming majority for proposal #4 Meddie Egg (5/4/0/59). As the proposal has multiple versions, I'd say we move on to voting for which version of the Meddie Egg is the best liked one. NielsF 02:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps leave it for another 2 days to get over the two-week mark, but voting for the variant should begin soon. Daniel (‽) Check out Wikiscope! 08:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur. I'd remove the first version straight away, since it is not as cleaned up as the other ones, and have a second vote between horizontal line, vertical line-full and vertical line-half. —Nightstallion(?) 05:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It appears that the vote has excluded the first proposal without discussion; what was not "cleaned up"? The fact that there's a logo name in it? It's a clean SVG, and it's extremely easy to remove or change the logo name. But nobody asked me to clean anything. I got only suggestions to make it full eggs, with small cracks, and this was not my proposal (i inidicated that another proposal could be made by someone else), and one wanted to have blue eggs (not my proposal, and a strange color for eggs anyway). Nobody has also addresses the copyright issue that I had respected since the begining (and not the proposed logos that were submitted without clear copyright assignment, under the default GFDL which was completely inappropriate for a Wikimedia Foundation's logo.

I discovered the vote only by revisiting this page which was still an ongoing discussion when I left it the last time, and where everyone was suggesting that more proposals were needed.

Nobody has informed me (my contact discussion pages have nothing about it!) about the vote which was not even visible in this page (possibly hidden within other discussons) when I could load it once in early July.

Now that I look at the vote that occured, the decision was severely skewed, based only on a single proposal from the same author (and very minor variants about the direction of the line crossing the egg, but aboslutely no variant.

Given the final problems related to the copyright, and the way the vote was organized (not announced with enough time, no official call to candidates, a limited vote period, and even stopped very early, during a period where many people are taking their holidays), those that will look at the result of this pseudo-vote will just think that this decision is unfair, and that a new decision must be made by a more formal call to participation, and a more regular procedure, matching those used for important decisions in major Wikipedias, in Meta, and correctly announced on the Incubator wiki itself. 16:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC) Verdy p.

I've ended the vote. A new vote has begun for the variant of the logo. Daniel (‽) Check out Wikiscope! 14:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The previous vote lasted 15 days. If we stop this one tommorow it will have lasted 15 days also. Is 29, 10, 5 a strong enough consensus? Daniel (‽) Check out Wikiscope! 10:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it is (almost a two-thirds majority), but we can also ask those five who voted for the third-placed logo to change their vote to one of the others... —Nightstallion(?) 10:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You can be the one doing that, as a rule I try not to canvas votes. 88.154.14.209 18:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC) Sorry, that was me. Daniel (‽) Check out Wikiscope! 18:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I've ended the vote. There's an archive here. The winner was variant #3. I'll upload the image to Commons and Incubator, and see about getting a dev to change it. Daniel (‽) Check out Wikiscope! 10:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

15 days of vote only, during holidays where many people are not present, and excluding other proposals that were made is really not fair. I contest the validity of the vote where so few people were informed of this existence and actually voted based on a filtered list where other proposals were simply eliminated without discussion.

The only proposed logos for the vote were from the same author, they were minor variants of each other. All what the vote demonstrates is that this author wanted an opinion about several possible options around the same logo. There has still not been enough contributions to adopt such thing, notably when there still remains issues with the proposals proposed to vote (incorrect copyright assignment). Only my logo was created and immediately uploaded with the full copyrights assigned to the Wikimedia Foundation who owns its logos and derivations. 86.221.101.95 15:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Where? I'd already added the SVG's (at Image:Incubator-text.svg and Image:Incubator-notext.svg). Ideally the third would be at Image:Incubator-text.png. Daniel (‽) Check out Wikiscope! 13:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I contacted the foundation-l mailing list to ask what was necessary for copyright transferal. By doing this I inadvertantly opened a pandora's box of potential problems. There are lots of queries as to whether the logo violates the visual identity guidelines, which apply to derivatives of the Foundation (Meta) logo.

The general opinion seemed to be that it would not be good to go against the vote, but the logo might not be OK, and we should have checked with the Foundation first.

You can read the whole story here (starts at the end of July, and spills into August). I'm also in contact with Brad Patrick, the Wikimedia lawyer. He's not inclined to go against the vote, but he also has worries about whether the logo is OK. He'll check with his lawyer buddies and email me. I'll keep you lot posted. Daniel (‽) Check out Wikiscope! 18:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, mate... Argh, I hope this turns out well in the end. —Nightstallion(?) 21:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

15 days of vote only (it's ridiculously too short, given that this would give a visual identity to the project including n press releases, and when you consider that the most important decisions made in large wikipedias are based on votes during 1 month per phase, and often organized in two phases. The vote occured during holidays where many people are not present at home, and excluding other proposals that were made is really not fair. I contest the validity of the vote where so few people were informed of this existence and actually voted based on a filtered list where other proposals were simply eliminated without discussion.

The only proposed logos for the vote were from the same author, they were minor variants of each other. All what the vote demonstrates is that this author wanted an opinion about several possible options around the same logo. There has still not been enough contributions to adopt such thing, notably when there still remains issues with the proposals proposed to vote (incorrect copyright assignment). Only my logo was created and immediately uploaded with the full copyrights assigned to the Wikimedia Foundation who owns its logos and derivations.

During my holidays, I did not even receive any announcement in my discussion pages regarding my proposal, despite the proposed logo itself and the discussions above give links to it.

Seriously, consider making a more regular vote, announced on major Wikipedias, and in the Incubator home page itself where the only announcement made was that a discussion was started, but nothing about this 15-days vote in late July. 86.221.101.95 15:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there were 30 days of voting, split into 2 parts. There were 15 days of voting for the logo (see /archive), and 15 days of voting for the variant of the chosen logo (see /archive2).

The project is not a project with high visibility. It is not a place to which the public will particularly go, and also not a place that most Wikipedia users will care about. The incubator does not require a full press release etc., becuase it is a small project, tied to Meta and the Foundation, and it only really needed a logo competition becuase it was stuck using first the Wikipedia logo and then the Foundation logo - both confusing and inappropriate. There were notifications about the competition on both Meta and Incubator. I don't know what 'discussion pages' you mean, but if you're refering to your user talk page, it is not standard policy to notify every Wikimedian personally about such things.

I'm sorry that you are unsatisfied with the results and process. However, we did things as we saw fit, and the only problem I find with the process we followed is that the board was not notified early enough.

Next time you comment, can you please log in first, as it is hard to respond when I don't know who you are. Thank you. Daniel (‽) Check out Wikiscope! 11:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)